Conversion therapy is a treatment strategy that shifts from palliative systemic therapy to curative surgical treatment for primary and/or metastatic stage IV gastric cancer (GC).To address its clinical statements, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association aims to present a consensus on conversion therapy among experts attending KINGCA WEEK 2024. The KINGCA Scientific Committee and Development Working Group for Korean Practice Guidelines prepared preformulated topics and 9 clinical statements for conversion therapy.The Delphi method was applied to a panel of 17 experts for consensus and opinions. The final comments were announced after the statement presentation and discussed during the consensus meeting session of KINGCA WEEK 2024. Most experts agreed that conversion herapy provides a survival benefit for selected patients who respond to systemic therapy and undergo R0 resection (88.3%). Patients with limited metastases were considered good candidates (94.2%). The optimal timing was based on the response to systemic therapy (70.6%). The regimen was recommended to be individualized (100%) and the duration to be at least 6 months (88.3%). A minimally invasive approach (82.3%) and D2 lymph node dissection (82.4%) were considered for surgery. However, resection for metastases with a complete clinical response after systemic therapy was not advocated (41.2%). All experts agreed on the need for large-scale randomized-controlled trials for further evidence (100%).Recent advancements in treatment may facilitate radical surgery for patients with stage IV GC. Further evidence is warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of conversion therapy.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Conversion therapy is a treatment strategy that shifts from palliative systemic therapy to curative surgical treatment for primary and/or metastatic stage IV gastric cancer (GC).To address its clinical statements, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association aims to present a consensus on conversion therapy among experts attending KINGCA WEEK 2024. The KINGCA Scientific Committee and Development Working Group for Korean Practice Guidelines prepared preformulated topics and 9 clinical statements for conversion therapy.The Delphi method was applied to a panel of 17 experts for consensus and opinions. The final comments were announced after the statement presentation and discussed during the consensus meeting session of KINGCA WEEK 2024. Most experts agreed that conversion herapy provides a survival benefit for selected patients who respond to systemic therapy and undergo R0 resection (88.3%). Patients with limited metastases were considered good candidates (94.2%). The optimal timing was based on the response to systemic therapy (70.6%). The regimen was recommended to be individualized (100%) and the duration to be at least 6 months (88.3%). A minimally invasive approach (82.3%) and D2 lymph node dissection (82.4%) were considered for surgery. However, resection for metastases with a complete clinical response after systemic therapy was not advocated (41.2%). All experts agreed on the need for large-scale randomized-controlled trials for further evidence (100%).Recent advancements in treatment may facilitate radical surgery for patients with stage IV GC. Further evidence is warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of conversion therapy.

The continuous emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants as well as other potential future coronavirus has challenged the effectiveness of current COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, there remains a need for alternative antivirals that target processes less susceptible to mutations, such as the formation of six-helix bundle (6-HB) during the viral fusion step of host cell entry. In this study, a novel high-throughput screening (HTS) assay employing a yeast-two-hybrid (Y2H) system was established to identify inhibitors of HR1/HR2 interaction. The compound IMB-9C, which achieved single-digit micromolar inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 and its Omicron variants with low cytotoxicity, was selected. IMB-9C effectively blocks the HR1/HR2 interaction in vitro and inhibits SARS-CoV-2-S-mediated cell-cell fusion. It binds to both HR1 and HR2 through non-covalent interaction and influences the secondary structure of HR1/HR2 complex. In addition, virtual docking and site-mutagenesis results suggest that amino acid residues A930, I931, K933, T941, and L945 are critical for IMB-9C binding to HR1. Collectively, in this study, we have developed a novel screening method for HR1/HR2 interaction inhibitors and identified IMB-9C as a potential antiviral small molecule against COVID-19 and its variants.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) is a multifunctional protein involved in diverse cellular functions, notably DNA damage repair. Pharmacological inhibition of PARP1 has therapeutic benefits for various pathologies. Despite the increased use of PARP inhibitors, challenges persist in achieving PARP1 selectivity and effective blood-brain barrier (BBB) penetration. The development of a PARP1-specific positron emission tomography (PET) radioligand is crucial for understanding disease biology and performing target occupancy studies, which may aid in the development of PARP1-specific inhibitors. In this study, we leverage the recently identified PARP1 inhibitor, AZD9574, to introduce the design and development of its ¹⁸F-isotopologue ([¹⁸F]AZD9574). Our comprehensive approach, encompassing pharmacological, cellular, autoradiographic, and in vivo PET imaging evaluations in non-human primates, demonstrates the capacity of [¹⁸F]AZD9574 to specifically bind to PARP1 and to successfully penetrate the BBB. These findings position [¹⁸F]AZD9574 as a viable molecular imaging tool, poised to facilitate the exploration of pathophysiological changes in PARP1 tissue abundance across various diseases.

Conversion therapy is a treatment strategy that shifts from palliative systemic therapy to curative surgical treatment for primary and/or metastatic stage IV gastric cancer (GC).To address its clinical statements, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association aims to present a consensus on conversion therapy among experts attending KINGCA WEEK 2024. The KINGCA Scientific Committee and Development Working Group for Korean Practice Guidelines prepared preformulated topics and 9 clinical statements for conversion therapy.The Delphi method was applied to a panel of 17 experts for consensus and opinions. The final comments were announced after the statement presentation and discussed during the consensus meeting session of KINGCA WEEK 2024. Most experts agreed that conversion herapy provides a survival benefit for selected patients who respond to systemic therapy and undergo R0 resection (88.3%). Patients with limited metastases were considered good candidates (94.2%). The optimal timing was based on the response to systemic therapy (70.6%). The regimen was recommended to be individualized (100%) and the duration to be at least 6 months (88.3%). A minimally invasive approach (82.3%) and D2 lymph node dissection (82.4%) were considered for surgery. However, resection for metastases with a complete clinical response after systemic therapy was not advocated (41.2%). All experts agreed on the need for large-scale randomized-controlled trials for further evidence (100%).Recent advancements in treatment may facilitate radical surgery for patients with stage IV GC. Further evidence is warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of conversion therapy.